A New Wave of Hate
The Anti-Immigrant Legislative Boom Since 2020
Authors
Marcos Montoya Andrade, LULAC Research and Policy Fellow
Dr. Ray Serrano, LULAC Director of Research & Policy
Introduction
From inflammatory statements describing undocumented immigrants as “poisoning the blood of our country” to discussions framing them as part of a “migrant invasion,” anti-immigrant rhetoric continues to plague the United States.
The pathologization of undocumented immigrants is nothing new to the U.S. The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 represents one of the earliest and most significant pieces of legislation aimed at excluding individuals based solely on their nationality. Congress enacted this law in response to claims that Chinese migrant laborers were “[lowering] the cultural and moral standards of American society” and unfairly increasing labor market competition, lowering overall wages for American workers. The Act remained in effect until it was abrogated in 1943. Despite its repeal, the underlying anti-immigrant sentiment persisted.
In the decades that followed, various anti-immigrant groups advanced nativist campaigns, driven by a focus on prioritizing the interests of real Americans over those of immigrants. National security, the economy, and cultural preservation were the key tenets of these campaigns. Many of the same arguments used to justify the Chinese Exclusion Act have been recycled and repackaged into recent legislative proposals. Notable anti-immigrant proposals include California’s Proposition 187, Texas’s SB 4, Alabama’s HB 56, and Arizona’s SB 1070, reflecting ongoing debates and controversies surrounding immigration.
Anti-immigrant bills seek to target the estimated 11.2 million undocumented immigrants living in the US, 66% of whom are Latino. Thus, Latinos are at an increased risk of bearing the brunt of these policies.
Even for Latinos with legal status, anti-Latino hate crimes have skyrocketed in the last decade because of the intensification and racialization of anti-immigrant political discourse. In other words, when the majority of people hear the word “immigrant,” they hear “Latino.”
State-Level 'Regulation' of Immigration?
The U.S. has long recognized immigration regulation as an exclusive power of the federal government. The federal government is solely responsible for determining admission and expulsion from the country, not individual states. However, Congress' inability to address the flawed immigration system has pushed states to take matters into their own hands and 'regulate' immigration independently.
States have taken two approaches to regulating the lives of undocumented immigrants within their borders. Restrictionist states pass legislation to create a hostile environment, deterring undocumented immigrants from settling within their borders. Examples of restrictionist legislation include requiring full cooperation with the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) detainer requests, banning undocumented students from attending public colleges and universities, and criminalizing the presence of an undocumented person in a state. On the other hand, inclusive states aim to improve the well-being of undocumented immigrants by passing laws that facilitate their integration into the community. Examples of such legislation include sanctuary policies, access to state benefits, and eligibility for state driver's licenses.
The approach each state takes is strongly correlated with the political majority of the legislature. Conservative Republican states tend to be restrictionist while progressive Democrat states generally pursue inclusive measures. Although the partisan divide remains pronounced, there is a wide range of ideological immigration bills across all states.
Methodology and Purpose
Over the past five years, from 2020 to 2024, we’ve witnessed a troubling surge in anti-immigrant proposals at the state level. These measures—whether bills or resolutions—have specifically targeted migrant communities, often amplifying harmful and misleading narratives, like the baseless claims about non-citizen voting.
This analysis digs deep into the growing wave of anti-immigrant rhetoric that has found its way into our legislative processes, with real and often devastating consequences. We explore how the racialization of policy has put Latino communities at heightened risk, underlining the tangible threats and dangers that these legislative developments now pose.
Our research design was based on Martinez et al. 2015. We selected the 2020-2024 timeframe because the COVID-19 pandemic marked a pivotal moment in the immigration policy landscape, especially given the heightened tensions surrounding the 2020 presidential election. By delving into the websites of state legislatures, we examined all bills and resolutions introduced during the three legislative sessions (2019-2020, 2021-2022, and 2023-2024). Our focus was initially narrowed by filtering for proposals introduced in 2020. We then selected those that met specific criteria: they needed to mention terms like “immigrant,” “border,” “sanctuary,” “alien,” or “citizenship,” and they had to either promote or perpetuate anti-immigrant sentiments and theories.
After gathering our initial set of anti-immigrant proposals, we verified our findings through Bloomberg Government, using a search for “immigrant” or “border” or “sanctuary” or “alien” or “citizenship.” This search yielded 27,189 proposals, but after applying our criteria, we identified 561 that were relevant. We then categorized each proposal by issue, and noted essential details including the proposal’s name, state, year of introduction, legislative progress, sponsors, and political party. For our statistical analysis, we employed STATA.
Since the Onset of the COVID-19 Pandemic, Anti-immigrant Legislation has Surged by 357%
From 2020 to 2024, we tracked over 561 anti-immigrant proposals across 45 states. During the 2021-2022 legislative session, we recorded over 145 proposals, which surged by 152% to 365 proposals in the 2023-2024 session. This represents a 357% increase in anti-immigrant proposals in state legislatures since 2020. In other words, for every anti-immigrant proposal in 2020, there were an average of 4.6 proposals in 2024.
Border, law enforcement, and sanctuary policy-related proposals are the most prominent. These proposals seek to secure the southern border by enhancing surveillance technology and completing the construction of the border wall. On the other hand, law enforcement policies seek to train And require local law enforcement officers to cooperate with federal immigration authorities, essentially thwarting sanctuary policies that seek to limit cooperation with federal authorities.
Anti-Immigrant Proposals in 2020
In March 2020, the emerging pandemic caused widespread disruption across the nation. Viewing the border as a safeguard against COVID-19, former President Donald Trump implemented Title 42 to shut the southern border and more easily reject asylum seekers. Capitalizing on this, states introduced 17 individual bans on sanctuary policies—measures that prevent local authorities from limiting cooperation with federal immigration agencies. These bans aimed to deter immigrants who had crossed the border from settling within their states. They accounted for one-third of the 51 anti-immigrant proposals introduced in 2020.
Anti-Immigrant Proposals in 2021
In the wake of the 2020 presidential election, a wave of unfounded claims about fake ballots and non-citizen voting began circulating on social media. Fueled by allegations of a "stolen election," early 2021 saw states proposing 14 measures focused on verifying voters' legal status and auditing the integrity of federal elections. At the same time, 39 state proposals sharply criticized the Biden administration’s alleged open-border policy, which they claimed was driving migration from Latin America. As a result, 2021 saw a 59% increase in anti-immigrant proposals compared to 2020, with a total of 81 such measures.
Anti-Immigrant Proposals in 2022
In 2022, while election-related proposals persisted, states began to turn their focus to other pressing issues. Fourteen proposals emerged aimed at criminalizing the employment of undocumented workers and working without proper authorization.
Among these, the New Jersey Jobs Protection Act of 2022 argues that the presence of undocumented workers in the labor market leads to:
The language in this bill is strikingly similar to the hateful rhetoric used during the push for the Chinese Exclusion Act, reigniting the nativist movement. Although the bill has consistently failed to pass, it has been reintroduced time and again since its debut in 2014. Each attempt not only resurrects these harmful narratives but also stokes the flames of nativism.
Florida’s SB 314 sought to reclassify offenses like sexual battery, homicide, and burglary to higher-level misdemeanors and felonies simply because they were committed by "unlawfully present aliens." While LULAC agrees that anyone committing such serious crimes should face the full force of the law, we take issue with this bill's approach. By reclassifying crimes solely based on legal status, the bill unfairly links undocumented immigrants with the most egregious offenders, such as rapists, murderers, and thieves. This not only misrepresents undocumented individuals but also perpetuates harmful stereotypes and discrimination.
The 21% decrease in the number of proposals at the state level in 2022 may indicate that many anti-immigrant bills are, in nature, reactionary. In other words, legislatures tend to introduce such proposals when the issue—in this case, immigration—reaches a boiling point. When public attention shifts away, the volume of these proposals tends to drop. According to a 2024 Pew Research Center report, there was a notable drop in the percentage of people seeing unauthorized immigration as a major problem in 2022. This was after a peak in 2021 and a rise in concerns from 2023 onwards. The drop in state-level proposals could be linked to decreased pressure from constituents, fewer migrant encounters, and a temporary lull in the national immigration debate. It's also worth noting that some legislatures follow a two-year session cycle, which means they might hold off on introducing new legislation during even-numbered years like 2022.
Anti-Immigrant Proposals in 2023
In 2023, state legislatures saw a dramatic increase with 132 anti-immigrant proposals, a staggering 106% rise from the previous year. There was a renewed surge in proposals focused on border and law enforcement issues, urging President Biden and Congress to address what was described as a “historic invasion.” Indeed, 2023 set a record for the highest number of migrant encounters reported by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
Not surprisingly, Arizona’s HCM 2007 accused President Biden of “consistently refusing to enforce our nation's federal immigration laws,” while Tennessee’s HJR 27 blamed him for halting the “completion of the wall.” These bills are riddled with language that suggests “illegal aliens” as an “invading” force—a classic narrative used to imbue the public with fear and anxiety.
Arizona’s SB 1408 targeted non-profits who work at the border by criminalizing the use of telephones and computers to aid undocumented immigrants. The bill was vetoed, but the message behind the bill—that legislatures are willing to criminalize any action taken by an individual to aid migrants at the border—indicates the pervasive cloud of anti-immigrant sentiment permeating state legislatures.
Texas’ SB 4 and Florida’s SB 1718 became widely recognized as the most anti-immigrant bills passed in recent years. SB 4’s extreme measures were quickly contested in federal court after its passage in late 2023, and to date, it remains unenforced. In contrast, SB 1718 is a sweeping immigration measure that criminalizes transporting undocumented immigrants—potentially including family members—into the state, invalidates out-of-state driver’s licenses issued to undocumented drivers, requires hospitals to inquire about patients’ immigration status, expands E-verify enforcement, and more. In May 2024, a federal court intervened and blocked section 10 of SB 1718 which established the vague crime of transporting undocumented immigrants into the state.
While these draconian bills have faced partial setbacks, they've ignited a new legal battle, pushing advocates to challenge federal immigration enforcement in the courts.
Amid the growing number of border crossings and President Biden’s decision to end Title 42 in May 2023, many states intensified their efforts against undocumented immigrants. Florida’s SB 6 created the “Unauthorized Alien Transport Program” to relocate undocumented immigrants to sanctuary states, mirroring Texas’ initiative to relocate processed migrants to Washington, D.C. Oklahoma’s SB 53 sought to strip U.S.-born children of their citizenship if their parents were undocumented. Additionally, two proposals from Texas demanded that Congress reimburse the state for the costs of educating undocumented children and securing the southern border. In sum, these proposals sought to displace recently arrived migrants, challenge federal birthright citizenship, and label undocumented immigrants as a burden on American society.
Anti-Immigrant Proposals in 2024
While 2023 was already marked by an unprecedented surge of anti-immigrant proposals, the actions of Texas Governor Greg Abbott would exacerbate an already blazing fire across the nation. In the 2024 state legislative session, a staggering 233 anti-immigrant bills emerged, reflecting a 77% increase from 2023—and the year isn’t even over.
Governor Abbott's Operation Lone Star (OLS), launched in 2021 to secure the southern border, had already sent countless State National Guard members to aid border patrol in capturing, processing, and relocating migrants to sanctuary cities across the nation. The latter part of 2023 and early 2024 saw an intensification of this strategy. Abbott ordered 100 miles of razor wire fencing and a floating barrier of buoys that resulted in several migrant deaths and injuries.
In response, 16 states introduced 36 proposals to support Abbott’s efforts and bolster their own state national guards. The 2024 legislative session of state legislatures across the nation also saw a swelling of border and law enforcement-related proposals, a 116% increase from the year before.
Supporters of Governor Abbott contend that the “Biden Administration's inexcusable indifference” towards the impacts of its alleged open-border policies, and the fact that “other states across the nation are stepping up to assist the state of Texas,” justifies their support for Texas in its “Constitutional defense” of the border.
While the nation battles for control of its international borders, states have also pushed forward with several proposals targeting undocumented immigrants. Iowa, Louisiana, Kansas, and Oklahoma have each enacted bills criminalizing undocumented status, previous deportation, or illegal entry. Arizona, Idaho, Mississippi, Missouri, South Carolina, and West Virginia introduced similar measures, though they ultimately failed.
Alabama’s SB 108, New Hampshire’s SB 358, and Wyoming’s SF 120 sought to invalidate out-of-state driver’s licenses issued to undocumented immigrants. Arizona’s now-vetoed HB 2843 would have allowed an open hunting season on migrants, granting Arizonans the right to shoot migrants on any part of their property, even on ranches that span thousands of acres. New Jersey’s A 4735 and South Carolina’s HB 4688 would have required hospitals to collect the immigration status of patients, potentially deterring undocumented Latinos from seeking medical care. Bills like Oklahoma’s HB 3124—which would have required parents to submit proof of their child’s citizenship before school enrollment—run aground federal law.
Twelve states have pressed on with efforts to ban sanctuary cities within their borders, while ten states have introduced bills requiring all employers to use E-Verify to confirm legal status and, redundantly, to bar undocumented workers from legal employment. Ironically, many of these states, like the rest of the country, still rely heavily on undocumented labor. Bills like Ohio’s HB 327 and New Hampshire’s HB 1110, which aim to curb this labor force, ultimately threaten the very economy they claim to protect.
State legislatures are overwhelmed with a surge of anti-immigrant bills that exploit and amplify voter fears. The divisive rhetoric of former President Trump has intensified a more aggressive campaign against immigrants and Latinos, regardless of their legal status. Consequently, millions of undocumented immigrants are facing increasing villainization and adverse effects as the number of anti-immigrant proposals continues to rise at an alarming rate.
Symbolic Legislation: Assessing the Enactment Rate of Anti-Immigration Legislation
Our study finds that of all 561 anti-immigrant proposals, only 74 ever passed state legislatures, representing only 13.2% of all proposals from 2020 to 2024. Anti-immigrant proposals only had an average enactment rate of 12.5% each year compared to 27% for all other proposals. Anti-immigrant proposals passing at a lower rate than all other proposals suggest that state legislatures may be the new vanguard of anti-immigrant sentiment in the nation.
Symbolic proposals are crafted not with the intent to become law but to signal to colleagues and constituents that a particular issue warrants attention. Take, for instance, Minnesota’s HF 4213, which sought to repeal the healthcare coverage expansion allowing undocumented Minnesotans to access MinnesotaCare, the state’s healthcare program. Such proposals often serve as a political statement rather than a serious legislative push.
With 15 co-sponsors, Rep. Isaac Schultz signaled to the state legislature that the undocumented immigrants strained state resources. The bill failed to gain traction, but it sent a clear signal: Minnesota Republicans are signaling a new effort to roll back expansions of public benefits for undocumented immigrants. This proposal hints at a shift in Minnesota's stance, suggesting the state might no longer be as welcoming to undocumented residents as it once was. Such moves could discourage undocumented immigrants from considering Minnesota as a place to settle.
Some bills require less work to understand their meaning. Take for example Idaho’s HB 615 which sought to require proof of lawful residency to access public state benefits. Representatives Jordan Redman and Josh Tanner argued that the bill's purpose was to “...cause Idaho to not be a magnet that draws illegal aliens…” Although the bill ultimately failed, it highlighted a broader strategy: fostering an environment of hostility could push undocumented individuals to self-deport or relocate to a more welcoming state.
Even though many anti-immigrant proposals never make it through state legislatures, those that do often have a devastating impact on undocumented communities. These laws can drastically alter lives, pushing vulnerable populations into even greater hardship. Yet, there's been a concerted pushback from Democratic governors who have stepped in to halt some of these harmful measures from taking effect. Their efforts have provided a line of defense, protecting countless individuals from the worst consequences of these legislative attacks. But as the battle continues, the struggle for immigrant rights remains both fierce and ongoing.
In Wisconsin, Governor Tony Evers stopped two voting-related bills—SB 938 and SB 98—from enacting, citing that there is “no evidence of non-citizens voting in this state,” and that these bills could “perpetua[te] false narratives about [Wisconsin’s] elections.”
Governor Roy Cooper of North Carolina vetoed SB101, which required local law enforcement to detain individuals for whom ICE issued a detainer request. He stated the bill was only passed to score “political points” and used “fear to divide North Carolinians.”
Arizona’s Governor Katie Hobbs vetoed three bills. SB 1231 would have made it a state crime to cross the border, HB 2843 allowed residents to shoot migrants in self-defense, and SB 1408 criminalized the use of phones and computers to assist migrants at the border. Governor Hobbs argued that SB 1231 “does not secure our border” and “will be harmful for communities and businesses in our state.” Vetoing HB 2843, Governor Hobbs states that this “example of extremists in the Arizona legislature,” values “property over human life and incentivizes vigilantism.”
Lastly, in vetoing SB 1408, Governor Hobbs denounces the “attempt by the majority to criminalize organizations and individuals who aim to support immigrants and refugees.” She goes on to “implore the majority party…to provide real solutions to support our border,” rather than pass dangerous policies.
A Bipartisan Effort?
Our study reveals a striking trend: out of the 561 anti-immigrant proposals analyzed, a staggering 546, or 97.3%, were exclusively sponsored by Republicans. Only 14 bills, representing just 2.5%, garnered any bipartisan support. Across all 45 states, these proposals saw a combined total of 4,670 sponsors, averaging about 8.3 sponsors per proposal. Of the 14 bipartisan bills, nine had just one Democratic sponsor each, while only five had two or more. In total, Democrats were listed as cosponsors 28 times but never as primary sponsors. Notably, the only independent to introduce a bill was former West Virginia Delegate S. Marshall Wilson from the Constitution Party.
While a bill may appear bipartisan, only an average of 15% of total sponsors happen to be Democrats. On average, bipartisan bills had 2 Democratic and 29 Republican sponsors, showing a large gap between political parties. In other words, while a bill may be ostensibly bipartisan, most garner their support from Republicans.
The current GOP platform is steeped in anti-immigrant rhetoric, reinforcing the hostile language that has characterized many political speeches but has not always translated into concrete policy changes. The official RNC platform reflects this sentiment through a series of quotes that echo the nativist themes we've seen in recent years. Below, we've compiled some of the most striking statements from the platform, illustrating how these sentiments are woven into the party's broader narrative on immigration.
In the words of the RNC, they will “restore [the] Nation of, by, and for the People.” In pursuit of this vision, they aim to deport millions of undocumented immigrants and entrench anti-immigrant sentiment deeply into the fabric of our society. Despite the political landscape shifting, Republicans remain at the forefront of anti-immigrant proposals, even in states traditionally dominated by Democrats.
The Top Anti-Immigrant States in the Nation
In recent years, anti-immigrant legislation has expanded rapidly across the United States. Out of the 45 states that introduced such measures, only 26 managed to enact them. This increase is striking: in 2020, just 14 states proposed anti-immigrant bills, while by 2024, that number had surged to 36. Consequently, whereas only 28% of states considered these proposals in 2020, now over 72% are involved.
It’s no surprise that the top 20 states driving anti-immigrant legislation are predominantly conservative strongholds. However, this list also includes some of the most pivotal swing states for the 2024 presidential election. Since 2020, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Georgia have each introduced a significant number of bills—21, 14, and 11 respectively—highlighting how this issue extends beyond traditional conservative territories.
In contrast, Democratic-leaning states such as California, Oregon, and Colorado have seen relatively little activity. Over the past five years, these states have introduced only one to two anti-immigrant bills, reflecting a stark difference in legislative priorities compared to their conservative counterparts.
Overall, while conservative states are more prolific in introducing anti-immigrant bills, the data reveals that the issue is not confined to the Deep South. The spread of anti-immigrant sentiment across the nation shows that neighboring states enacting such legislation can encourage others to follow suit, illustrating a broader, more pervasive trend.
Conclusion
Immigrants, especially undocumented immigrants, are integral to our communities. Undocumented immigrants currently contribute $96.7 billion annually in taxes, and a pathway to citizenship could add $1.7 trillion to the GDP in 10 years. They are an essential component of the American economy and proposals that target these hardworking individuals will only damage the nation’s social and economic fabric.
The anti-immigrant rhetoric is impacting a rapidly growing segment of the U.S. population. Today, the Latino community has reached over 65 million, representing 19.5% of the total U.S. population. Remarkably, Latinos account for 71% of the country's population growth over the past year alone.
Latinos possess significant power to challenge and overturn anti-immigrant policies before they even take hold. With an estimated 36.2 million eligible Latino voters, this demographic holds the key to influencing the outcome of the 2024 presidential election. Yet, despite their growing numbers, Latino voter turnout remains significantly lower than any other racial or ethnic group.
The impact of the Latino vote has proven to be nothing short of transformative. In the wake of California’s Proposition 187 in 1994—a measure that sought to deny social services to undocumented immigrants—the mobilization of Latino voters showcased their formidable political power. Despite the setback of that proposition, the surge in Latino voter engagement in the years that followed played a key role in shifting California’s political landscape.
As we navigate the challenges of today, one lesson stands out: the collective power of Latino voters can reshape political narratives and drive policy change. With anti-immigrant proposals posing a significant threat to our communities, LULAC calls on Latinos to mobilize their formidable collective voice. By uniting in this critical moment, we can push back against these attacks and champion justice and inclusivity.
Notes
